On 10/17/07, Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com> wrote: As an academic, my personal desire regarding "open access" journals is a lot closer to CC-BY-ND-NC (with exceptions for excerpting/quoting). I want my work to be widely accessible to everyone, but I do have an expectation that the material appear largely in the form that I published it. The idea of someone taking my academic papers, wiki-ing them up, and altering the conclusions or the nuance of the text is something that I fear would generally distort, rather than add to, the value of the scholarship. Reputation is very important in academia, and authors are expected to stand behind their body of work. Creating full-fledged derivative versions risks confusing the academic record. That said, I don't object to people building on my work, quoting from it, or taking figures/data for future publications. But the new publications should be largely new rather than largely derivative. The normal growth and exchange of data is consistent with fair use and the existing standards in academia, so CC-BY-ND with the expectation of fair use is something I would consider acceptable or a new license explicitly addressing limited reuse could be constructed. However, simply leaving it at CC-BY would probably make me too uncomfortable to publish under. The NC is less significant, but there is still an emotional reaction that if I am paying page charges for publishing, as is common, then I shouldn't be allowing others to independently resell my work. Or put another way, the commercial value of the publication should contribute to defraying the cost of publication. Scientists often don't have a lot of money, and so essentially giving it away doesn't make a lot of sense. Though I would prefer NC, I would still consider publishing without that restriction, unlike the case of ND above. So I guess my ideal open access journal is one that would be free for everyone to view, free to redistribute copies, and free to extract figures and data for future (largely independent) publications. However, I am very uncomfortable with the notion of allowing people to publish altered versions of the text that might misrepresent my work. I am also uncomfortable, though less so, with the notion of future people commerically profiting from the publication in a way that doesn't put anything towards defraying the cost of the publication. -Robert Rohde